header-logo header-logo

06 March 2024
Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail

Litigation funding legislation to reverse PACCAR

The government has confirmed it will introduce a law to restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling last year on litigation funding

Legislation introduced by Alex Chalk, Lord Chancellor, will make it easier for people to secure litigation funding from third parties when pursuing complex claims against wealthy corporates or other large organisations such as the Post Office. Litigation funding was essential to the subpostmasters’ claim, led by former subpostmaster Alan Bates, which challenged the Post Office’s reliance on its flawed Horizon accounting system.

It will effectively reverse R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, in which it was held that litigation funding agreements where payment is based on the amount of damages recovered are damages-based agreements, and therefore mainly unenforceable.

Chalk said: ‘It’s crucial victims can access justice—but it can feel like a David and Goliath battle when they’re facing powerful corporations with deep pockets.’

He said the government is considering options for a wider review of the litigation funding sector and how third-party litigation funding is carried out, including whether more regulation and safeguards are required.

Martyn Day, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), said: ‘This is a very sensible and welcome development from government.

‘It will ensure that groups of claimants seeking redress resulting from wrongdoing by large corporations and other bodies will be able to focus on bringing claims without those corporations tying up court time and money in trying to unpick the funding agreements that make the claims possible.

‘Collective redress is a vital legal mechanism by which ordinary people can seek justice when wrong is done to them by mighty corporations and other bodies. We will work closely with government on any reform that gives clarity, certainty and fairness to claimants and those who support them in bringing their claims.’

Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll